Will modern science be proved wrong?Me and my sister were discussing this earlier. Will currently respected knowledge be disproven in the way science always has been in the past?

It depends what you call respected knowledge. Most top scientists don't view the world with the same certainy that more ignorant people do.

Some things that the media calls science are not science at all, but just wild speculation.

The media is obsessed with the work of a few scientist such as Einstein. Einstein was known to be wrong about much of his work at the time he published it, yet the media has always portrayed him as an infallible genius.

Stephen Hawking's work on Black Holes is also highly speculative and not supported by any hard evidence.

The Big Bang theory is taught in schools as fact, even though there is no evidence to support it other than the direction of travel of observable matter. There are tremendous holes in the theory.

Chemisty as taught in schools has always been bogus. The image given of electrons flying around atoms is pure nonsense. It works as a way of understaning chemical reactions, but it is not reality.

Modern medicine is very young and is often based on bigotry and vested interests, so much of it is wrong. Big money will sadly always pervert medical research efforts.

Modern Geology is an even younger science. We are only just learning how to measure and understandand the behaviour of the earth beneath our feet.

Evolutionary biology is still short of sufficient data, to have a complete picture of the evolution of the species. Some evolutionary events such as animals becoming warm blooded cannot be determined from fossils and skeletons, so we are guessing for now. In the future we will know better, if intact DNA is ever found in prehistoric bones. The more DNA we find and decode of more recent species, the more we understand of the evolutionary process.

Most physicists agree that there is great uncertainty about science's understanding of the universe. Most theories have serious question marks over them, and there are theories, such as the existence of parallel universes, which we do not have any way of testing at this time.

At the begining of the 20th century Heissenberg proved beyond doubt, that no physics experiment could ever be 100% reliable. Other's showed the physical world to be random and chaotic, rather than ordered according to Einstein. Einstein went to his grave still trying to refute what no-one else continued to believe.

All science is by definition experimental. It should never be regard as certain. That is not to say some science is beyond reasonable doubt. For example no-one is yet to challenge Newton's laws of motion (taking into account relativity).

You should always remember that most scientists need to earn a living so you need to look at their motives before you blindly accept their claims. That is why unviersity scientists sponsored by Nestle's will claim powdered milk is best for babies in the third world, whilst government scientist all agree that breast is best.

Today, for Christians, the only sure thing they have for a guide is the bible. All else is tradition. You can say all matter of things against the bible, but that doesn't invalidate what makes up the Christian religion. So, it's either the bible and Christian, or it's nothing, in my thinking. So, either God left us with a guide book for these last days, or it's all bunk. Generally, those who choose "it's all bunk", have never devoted a large portion of their lives studying it. I could easily say the same thing about today's science, because I've not spent a large portion of my life studying it.

These last days? Where in the Bible, your guide book, does it tell us that these are the last days?

I firmly believe that the Bible was written by intelligent people -- people who were capable of nuance and using metaphor. Unfortunately, it's usually people who do not possess those same qualities that feel obliged to define Christianity as narrowly literal or nothing.

This represents the succession of power in the Asian/European Continent. The next step is the return of Christ. (End times started at the fall of Rome, and succession of power by the early Europeans, in this example).

Revelation 13:17 "so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name." (Forget what the mark or who the beast is at this point, doesn't matter. The important piece is the ability to turn off your buying and selling power. Think world bank. Once a government and/or financial institution has the power to turn off your financial ability to provide for yourself, based on, say, your religious beliefs, this is a big sign of the end of the world, according to Revelations. We're getting close to that point.) The next point made in Chapter 14, is the return of Christ.

Also, many areas that are filled with how people will think and interact with others are spread throughout the new testament that signal the end of time. Those things are more pronounced today than ever before.

(1) Isn't the topic of science vs. religion general?(2) Of course not, we should always strive to explain and know the world around us, but never refute or negate something that cannot be disproven.(3) The sciences has been in existence for a milennia or more. Much of the early sciences has of course been disproven. Even today Newtons 3rd law can be disproven in certain occasions. Many of the new theories are in contrast to what is considered proven. Science is ever evolving, but you are right, many things discovered have added and enforced current theories. Other have not. It take just as much faith to belive in a god, as to not believe in a god.